this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
1409 points (99.0% liked)

Firefox

18056 readers
148 users here now

A place to discuss the news and latest developments on the open-source browser Firefox

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FluffyToaster621@lemm.ee 93 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If this DRM can force you to use Chromium to display a webpage or content, that would be the most anticompetitive thing in recent times, and would absolutely not fly.

[–] xeekei@lemm.ee 77 points 1 year ago (4 children)

That's why they want to make it a web standard, so they can just blame Firefox and others for not following the standard and avoid EU fines.

That's what Microsoft did with their office document standard.

[–] Blackmist@feddit.uk 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, the sad thing here is that if Apple comply, it will basically become a standard and there's nothing that Firefox or anything else can do about it. If they can get it on iPhone, it's game over. Half the web will be blocked unless you agree to see adverts.

[–] mothringer@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If they can get it on iPhone, it's game over.

While this is true, I struggle to understand how Apple would stand to gain from implementing this unless it had already become a widespread standard. It's also an opportunity for more privacy focused marketing if they oppose it, just like they do with government attempts to force them to implement backdoors into iOS.

[–] InfiniWheel@lemmy.one 7 points 1 year ago

Yeah, they already dont bother implementing a bunch of actual standards. I don't see what they would get out of this since their ad network is very limited

[–] nan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I doubt they will.

Apple already has the Private Access Tokens that Cloudflare has been working on making into a standard, primarily for skipping captchas. Google doesn’t like those because they are too private.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I doubt the EU would buy that.

[–] wallmenis@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

I am afraid EU can be too dumb to not buy that!

[–] xeekei@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If it's an actual official web standard, they might have to.

[–] DarkThoughts@kbin.social 5 points 1 year ago

"Official" web standards huh?

[–] 4am@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Good thing Google is not a recognized standards body

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I have limited understanding of the technical side of this issue, but based on this comment, this sounds like a brilliant move by Google - Don't like the rules of the game, change the game...

Edit: for clarification, this comment was very tongue in cheek - I don't support Google, this was just an acknowledgement of a smart business play.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

an acknowledgement of a smart business play.

When politicians do it, it's "corruption." When normal people do it, it's "crime." When capitalist parasites do it, it's "smart business."

Double standards for yay! Smart business doesn't preclude moral/ethical cesspools

[–] xeekei@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I have issues with the rules of "the game", the current rules are better than the changes that Google are proposing, but since they are infinitely more powerful than me, I can only hope whatever body (W3C?) does not make it an official standard. As long as it's just an extra thing that Chrome/Chromium does, there's still hope for Google to get into legal trouble.

Fingers crossed that you're right. Definitely don't want to see them repositioning into an (even more) advantageous policy position. I imagine that a standards body such as the one you mentioned would be fairly careful about adopting anything proposed by a company without significant caution. At least that's how it works with some international standards agencies haha

[–] 4am@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We need to stop this capitalist brainrot. It’s not a smart business move; a smart business move would be one where everyone wins. This is a lazy and evil move designed for pure extraction of value and coercion of compliance.

Live the way we want you to (and we take 30% off the top!)

[–] spankinspinach@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

`I mean, yes, agreed. But this is literally how businesses operate - stay ahead of governments, or change the game so govts are onboard (as regulation regularly trails behind business). A genuinely smart business move would obviously be preferable, but the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl. It should be, but gestures wildly at everything

Edit: exchanged "always" for "regularly"

[–] 4am@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

the modern history of megacorps is not exactly a shining beacon of benevolence to the ppl

I mean, yes, agreed. But why does anyone think that that’s ok?